I think so. I just have a problem with dogmatism. Not that I also am
guilty of it sometimes. It just seems that many commentaries I read on
John 1:1a all say that "HN" is "imperfect" and therefore implies eternal
existence. I saw two other possibilities that need to be considered (in
my mind) before reaching that conclusion. First, the aorist sense (which
I think you covered in saying that it does not carry a perfective
aspect). Second, simply a reference to the durative time of the Word in
the "beginning" without necessarily referring to eternity. I knew that
if I posted "John 1:1" with the question I posed, I would get answers
based on theology and not necessarily grammar. That is why I posed it
the way I did. Thank you for you responses.
As for the question I had for the list that I wanted to post, but did
not, I read Harner's article last year numerous times to make sure I
understood it. I also read Colwell's article. I cannot personally see
how some can understand a definite emphasis in John 1:1c in light of
Harner's article. I wanted to post this question to the list but I
became tentative when I began thinking that it might become a theology
debate. Then someone told me that Paul Ladd covered this quite well on
b-greek a while back.
>>But enough already!<<
Agreed!
It's always a pleasure hashing things with you.
Sincerely,
Wes